posted
I don't think you can solve poverty without also enforcing birth control, which no one wants to do.
Exponential growth in animals leads to a leveling off due to starvation. Why do we humans think we're somehow exempt from that?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Focusing on birth rates is probably the wrong way of tackling the problem. Historically, birth rates decrease as per capita GDP increases anyways and many places like Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, Canada, and Singapore are at sub-replacement rates already without needing to enforce birth control.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that request would go a long ways toward fixing yours, BB. So get back in line behind me.
Oh I see how it is. Poor folks like me, have to sit in the back of the bus, while uppity rich folks like you tell the driver where you'd like to go.
Yes. You do see how it is. *pat pat*
quote: In all seriousness, I still think solving poverty is still a greater net gain over even cheap energy. Cheap energy certainly helps pull people out of poverty, but ultimately we are still going to have the haves and havenots. We will still have criminals, and those who cannot climb out of their circumstances.
edit: Further, with poverty solved, and all that brain power going towards other pursuits, there would be more effort expended towards things like upper education, hobbies, designing, tinkering, and your problem would most likely be solved as well. [/QB]
Unless humankind and society changed into something completely unrecognizable, I don't think that it is possible to solve the poverty problem without removing people's free will. Sure, there are lots of things we could do improve the problem (like free energy), but I don't think it could ever be 100% solved.
Functionally free energy, on the other hand, is something that I think might be possible.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm certainly not suggesting that the US enforce population control measures or anything like that. It seems clear that countries are much better off with a positive population curve.
But "solving poverty" seems to me to be a math problem at its heart.
Finite resources and a population growing exponentially is a combination guaranteed to lead to some individuals not receiving the resources they need.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the thing about poverty is that totally eye-balling it, with the rapid reduction of poverty in China, it should be eliminated in the next 10 or 15 years. India will take longer. Granted, places like Africa will take even longer, but it seems more or less inevitable given trends with developing markets.
Also, population growth under fairly reasonable assumptions about the future is expected to level-off at 2050.
So these two are problems that will probably be solved sooner or later. Free energy on the other hand would be revolutionary, assuming that it was clean* anyways. Might even change our understanding of entropy and/or help prevent the heat death of the universe.
* Depending on how free we're talking about, even not being "clean" might not be a problem if you can throw energy at it
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the population does level off in 2050, there's still a matter of resource consumption increasing exponentially. In this case, Porter's cheap energy would go a long way.
If both population and resource consumption level their curves, then we've got a shot. There's still finite resources, but the universe is a big place, and with linear consumption at that point it becomes a collection/distribution problem and not a math one.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Ah, I see that you are correct.
Yeah my entire premise rests on "total victory" actually happening. If we're dreaming, poverty seems to be a stronger goal. Realistically I see cheaper energy as being a more worthy and tenable goal.
----
BTW, Sheen has lost custody of his children temporarily, pending review.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Suppose someone invented a device/process which could do the following:
--produce unlimited food and other material goods at no cost, solving poverty.
--enable the opening up of unlimited space with near instantaneous travel, solving population crowding.
--produce unlimited, free, clean energy, solving any energy crisis.
-- and what the hay, it even provides a means to hold off entropy/heat death/big rip.
Would you use it?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention -- every good thing it is accomplishing in this universe is mirrored by an equal and opposite bad thing in a congruent alternate universe, so that for every intelligent being fed, clothed, housed, entertained here, elsewhere someone is starved, exposed, crowded, tortured, etc.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: Quite. Except in Omelas we consoled ourselves that the needs of the many outweighed the suffering of one.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But is there any real difference in the suffering quotient if one person carries everything as opposed to it being spread out amongst a populace?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exponential growth in animals leads to a leveling off due to starvation.
This seems to be a misunderstanding. First, the growth in animals is not truly exponential, but the lower part of an s-shaped curve (hence the leveling off). Second, many animal populations level off without any starvation involved. Populations adapt to resource constraints in many ways in the animal kingdom. Many animals simply have controls in their behavior that ensure fewer births when there are fewer resources.
quote:But is there any real difference in the suffering quotient if one person carries everything as opposed to it being spread out amongst a populace?
Yes. Five hundred thousand people foregoing a nice meal, or losing an hour of their lives, is less of a moral wrong than one dying 57 years early of starvation (that's about the same amount of time). I'm not sure what the tradeoff function is, but many small amounts lost in many places are not equivalent to their total lost in one place.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I don't like to discuss religion too much, I'm choking back a serious urge to reference Jesus....
But seriously, the FF-Producer-Debtor-Flux-Capacitor works thus:
you turn your thermostat up or down one degree, you increase the odds of someone freezing or sweating on world-A by just that much. Every ounce of food we produce here, makes 1 ounce less there. Every minute by which we postpone a supernova or red sun expansion or heat death here hastens it there.
You never have to see them or hear from them, but you know it's happening.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to further clarify: the effects of the FF-P-D-F-C are cumulative. Five million people on Earth keeping their living rooms cozy almost certainly causes an entire village or region on world-A to freeze; 20 million people on Earth having an extra snack in the evening causes the populace of a small island chain on world-a to starve.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Boy, did this thread take a turn for the surreal...
I'm only doing this to keep people occupied and here until Charlie Sheen wakes up later this evening....
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This also sounds just like The Fixation by Alastair Reynolds.
A group of Persian scientists are trying to prevent an ancient artifact from decaying over time. They devise a way to 'inject' entropy into a neighboring parallel universe to repair it. When asked if it will harm the other universe, the scientists say no, because they are dividing it up into small pieces and only sending an infinitesimal, unnoticeable amount to several other universes. When asked what would happen if it all goes to one universe, the scientists say it is not possible. Unbeknownst to the scientists, it in fact does all go to one universe. Reality in the victimized universe runs amok.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I recall correctly, (I read it long ago), Asimov's The Gods Themselves involves the the transfer of energy, and perhaps even angular momentum between our universe and another.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Because I don't like to discuss religion too much, I'm choking back a serious urge to reference Jesus....
But seriously, the FF-Producer-Debtor-Flux-Capacitor works thus:
you turn your thermostat up or down one degree, you increase the odds of someone freezing or sweating on world-A by just that much. Every ounce of food we produce here, makes 1 ounce less there. Every minute by which we postpone a supernova or red sun expansion or heat death here hastens it there.
You never have to see them or hear from them, but you know it's happening.
Oooh! Like they're in a third world country!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: This also sounds just like The Fixation by Alastair Reynolds.
A group of Persian scientists are trying to prevent an ancient artifact from decaying over time. They devise a way to 'inject' entropy into a neighboring parallel universe to repair it. When asked if it will harm the other universe, the scientists say no, because they are dividing it up into small pieces and only sending an infinitesimal, unnoticeable amount to several other universes. When asked what would happen if it all goes to one universe, the scientists say it is not possible. Unbeknownst to the scientists, it in fact does all go to one universe. Reality in the victimized universe runs amok.
Is that where Stargate stole it from?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is how ridiculous the Sheen escapades are, Jimmy Fallon is funny! this is not allowed, Charlie Sheen is so crazy that I enjoyed Jimmy Fallon... what is happening?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jimmy Fallon has also done a dead-on impression of Neil Young. I think Craig Ferguson is funnier, but Jimmy Fallon is clearly very talented.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What they should do is just have a different actor play Sheen's part in two and a half men each new episode. Not talk about it or reference it otherwise, just have it be someone different every day.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
My thinking was, get a stunt double to play Sheen's character for the ten seconds it takes him to get run over by Jake going for a spin in one of his cars...
And then they can call it 1-and-a-half men.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
All things considered, yeah I'd say it's real. And, quite honestly, I know a few people that would jump at the opportunity no matter how screwed up he may be.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: All things considered, yeah I'd say it's real. And, quite honestly, I know a few people that would jump at the opportunity no matter how screwed up he may be.
People in his state of mind can be bled dry. You can hang around them while they're pissing their money away.
I wouldn't have a problem with it, because he's an abusive and horrible person, so I hope he's getting bilked pretty much daily.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What they should do is just have a different actor play Sheen's part in two and a half men each new episode. Not talk about it or reference it otherwise, just have it be someone different every day.
I disagree. Just have Charlie off somewhere else. First few episodes he can be on a major bender calling from Vegas, Rio, Monaco, etc. Then we do a few weeks of Charlie in rehab. Then he decides to move to Europe and find himself.
Meanwhile, we move Evelyn and Berta up in bigger parts to fill in Charlie's straight lines and quips. Alan does most of the heavy lifting with the physical comedy and the rants and convoluted plots. Heck, one plot line where Jake gets super successful at something on the internet and we've got the "Alan's a loser and someone undeserving has more money than him" dynamic back.
Plus Berta moving in to Charlie's room so Alan's still sleeping on the couch would be fantastic. I think it'll work every bit as well without Sheen.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was all excited to do this until he said that he was Hollywood’s "most trending" celebrity. I've got standards.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Plus Berta moving in to Charlie's room so Alan's still sleeping on the couch would be fantastic. I think it'll work every bit as well without Sheen.
The best part is you could still call it Two and a Half Men!
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Plus Berta moving in to Charlie's room so Alan's still sleeping on the couch would be fantastic. I think it'll work every bit as well without Sheen.
The best part is you could still call it Two and a Half Men!
quote:As a fellow “gnarly-gnarlington” I have to emphatically state that violence against women is clearly conduct unbecoming. That’s a big thing to overlook, so I refuse to embrace all aspects of “The Sheen’s” behavior. But I will say that in many ways he is showing us the path out of the doldrums and shining a light on a brighter future. Charlie Sheen doesn’t want anything from you. Charlie Sheen doesn’t put his fate or livelihood in the hands of the state, or a union, or another human being. He believes in Charlie Sheen. He’s taken his natural talents and worked really hard at honing them and profiting from them. He’s taken that profit and decided to spend in a way that he sees fit. I’m not going to judge him and claim to know that he’s really a sad clown putting on happy make-up. His happy make-up is cocaine and hot chicks. I have enough experience with those things to know, in fact, that they do produce a considerable amount of happiness.
It’s so refreshing to see people on Facebook and Twitter echoing Sheen’s catchphrases instead of empty leftist garbage. They’re not using his terms in reference to him, but in reference to themselves. And that’s the key. We’ve been beat down for far too long into accepting that union membership and a middle class pension is the pinnacle of success or that there is some achievement or superiority associated with being a victim. “The Sheen” calls his path “Epic” and “Winning.” It used to be called the American dream. Believe in yourself, take responsibility for your actions, and deal with the repercussions of your decisions; both positive and negative. Watch how the fools and trolls react to the man and you can see their true motivations. Those people are not merely against Charlie Sheen, they’re against the American Dream. Follow his lead and start “winning.” Charlie Sheen clearly has this down, bro. What about you?
posted
Just as I stopped being entertained by Sheen's quotes, this guy gives me a new silly thing to laugh at.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:We need to hack up the person responsible for this bad connection. Hack him up into pieces in front of his children. We need to cut off his face and then wear it and go on a very tightly budgeted shopping spree in stores that don't exist yet.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Plus Berta moving in to Charlie's room so Alan's still sleeping on the couch would be fantastic. I think it'll work every bit as well without Sheen.
The best part is you could still call it Two and a Half Men!
This was the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Peek
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
